Support the Troops! Wear a Lapel Pin!!!!

[jAZ]

http://www.wcsh6.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=71741

National Guard Troops Denied Benefits After Longest Deployment Of Iraq War

Rhonda Erskine, Online Content Producer
Created: 10/3/2007 2:39:29 PM
Updated: 10/3/2007 5:32:02 PM

MINNEAPOLIS, MN (NBC) -- When they came home from Iraq, 2,600 members of the Minnesota National Guard had been deployed longer than any other ground combat unit. The tour lasted 22 months and had been extended as part of President Bush's surge.

1st Lt. Jon Anderson said he never expected to come home to this: A government refusing to pay education benefits he says he should have earned under the GI bill.

"It's pretty much a slap in the face," Anderson said. "I think it was a scheme to save money, personally. I think it was a leadership failure by the senior Washington leadership... once again failing the soldiers."

Anderson's orders, and the orders of 1,161 other Minnesota guard members, were written for 729 days.

Had they been written for 730 days, just one day more, the soldiers would receive those benefits to pay for school.

"Which would be allowing the soldiers an extra $500 to $800 a month," Anderson said.

That money would help him pay for his master's degree in public administration. It would help Anderson's fellow platoon leader, John Hobot, pay for a degree in law enforcement.

"I would assume, and I would hope, that when I get back from a deployment of 22 months, my senior leadership in Washington, the leadership that extended us in the first place, would take care of us once we got home," Hobot said.

Both Hobot and Anderson believe the Pentagon deliberately wrote orders for 729 days instead of 730. Now, six of Minnesota's members of the House of Representatives have asked the Secretary of the Army to look into it -- So have Senators Amy Klobuchar and Norm Coleman.

Klobuchar said the GI money "shouldn't be tied up in red tape," and Coleman said it's "simply irresponsible to deny education benefits to those soldiers who just completed the longest tour of duty of any unit in Iraq."

Anderson said the soldiers he oversaw in his platoon expected that money to be here when they come home.

"I had 23 guys under my command," Anderson said. "I promised to take care of them. And I'm not going to end taking care of them when this deployment is over, and it's not over until this is solved."

The Army did not respond questions Tuesday afternoon.

Senators Klobuchar and Coleman released a joint statement saying the Army secretary, Pete Geren, is looking into this personally, and they say Geren asked a review board to expedite its review so the matter could be solved by next semester.

Minnesota National Guard spokesman Lt. Col. Kevin Olson said the soldiers are "victims of a significant injustice."

[SCChief]

If this turns out to be true... if they wrote those orders for one day less than the requirement in order to deny that money to those soldiers... the individuals who made that decision should see their careers end. And the soldiers should get the money anyway. I find any individual denying a benefit to troops that have fought for this country due to a technicality of this nature to be reprehensible at best.

[patteeu]

If this turns out to be true... if they wrote those orders for one day less than the requirement in order to deny that money to those soldiers... the individuals who made that decision should see their careers end. And the soldiers should get the money anyway. I find any individual denying a benefit to troops that have fought for this country due to a technicality of this nature to be reprehensible at best.

I'm sorry, but that's a ridiculous over-reaction. It makes a ton of sense to write the orders that way. It also makes a ton of sense that after having their deployments extended, they deserve to see the benefits of a longer deployment. This publicity in the local media should help make sure their cause doesn't fall through the cracks or get denied by someone who thinks they can do it without reprecussion. I'd imagine that if the story is accurate and isn't leaving out any important information, in the end these soldiers will get their due. It's premature to get too outraged, imo.

[Adept Havelock]

It makes a ton of sense to write the orders that way.

It "Makes a ton of sense" to write the orders in such a manner that troops on a 22 month deployment are screwed out of a major benefit like that? Certainly not from any perspective that puts the troops first AFAICS. IMO, it certainly doesn't make any sense from a morale or troop retention POV.

I suppose it does, if you are more wedded to the saving a few bucks on the bottom line than taking care of the troops. That's about the only way "it makes a ton of sense" that I can see.

[jAZ]

It "Makes a ton of sense" to write the orders in such a manner that troops on a 22 month deployment are screwed out of a major benefit like that? Certainly not from any perspective that puts the troops first AFAICS. IMO, it certainly doesn't make any sense from a morale or troop retention POV.

I suppose it does, if you are more wedded to the saving a few bucks on the bottom line than taking care of the troops. That's about the only way "it makes a ton of sense" that I can see.
When your world view is that the people of your community are just another tool to be exploited as far as they will let you (or further if you can get away with it)... you say things like what patteeu said... because you believe it. There is a sort of a blind amorality to that world view that patteeu takes too far.

Shitty corporations are run the same way. Get every drop of benefit theoretically possible out of a human resource without giving a cent more benefit than legally enforceable. Screw job satisfaction or employee morale.

It's the philosphy that drives work forces to unionize and it's the same philosphy that causes unions to destroy their own industry.

It's a rather short sighted world view.

[Adept Havelock]

There is a sort of a blind amorality .

Hey now, don't go knocking blind amorality. It has it's time and place, and can be a hell of a lot of fun. PBJ

[pikesome]

Without making any comments on the correctness of this I can say, definitively, that this is the way it was done while I was in the Navy '94-'98. I handled orders for reservists while in Disbursing. I'm not 100% but I'm sure it has to do with budget concerns, the money comes from different "accounts" depending the the length of deployment.

[jAZ]

Without making any comments on the correctness of this I can say, definitively, that this is the way it was done while I was in the Navy '94-'98. I handled orders for reservists while in Disbursing. I'm not 100% but I'm sure it has to do with budget concerns, the money comes from different "accounts" depending the the length of deployment.
Rarely do we get objective confirmation of motive like this. Thanks for the info. :)

[patteeu]

It "Makes a ton of sense" to write the orders in such a manner that troops on a 22 month deployment are screwed out of a major benefit like that? Certainly not from any perspective that puts the troops first AFAICS. IMO, it certainly doesn't make any sense from a morale or troop retention POV.

I suppose it does, if you are more wedded to the saving a few bucks on the bottom line than taking care of the troops. That's about the only way "it makes a ton of sense" that I can see.

Are you high? If not, what excuse can you possibly have for completely failing to comprehend my post. I just looked at it again and it doesn't seem like it is overly complicated. Surely it's not above your comprehension level.

I suppose that if you are more wedded to finding a way to criticize a person who supports our current foreign policy than you are to being honest about what I wrote I could understand it, but that surely isn't why you f*cked it up so bad because it's too easy to see how moronic your response is since my actual post is right next door. I'll quote myself again to give you a second shot at it. Try reading to the end this time.

I'm sorry, but that's a ridiculous over-reaction. It makes a ton of sense to write the orders that way. It also makes a ton of sense that after having their deployments extended, they deserve to see the benefits of a longer deployment. This publicity in the local media should help make sure their cause doesn't fall through the cracks or get denied by someone who thinks they can do it without reprecussion. I'd imagine that if the story is accurate and isn't leaving out any important information, in the end these soldiers will get their due. It's premature to get too outraged, imo.

[patteeu]

When your world view is that the people of your community are just another tool to be exploited as far as they will let you (or further if you can get away with it)... you say things like what patteeu said... because you believe it. There is a sort of a blind amorality to that world view that patteeu takes too far.

Shitty corporations are run the same way. Get every drop of benefit theoretically possible out of a human resource without giving a cent more benefit than legally enforceable. Screw job satisfaction or employee morale.

It's the philosphy that drives work forces to unionize and it's the same philosphy that causes unions to destroy their own industry.

It's a rather short sighted world view.

Unfortunately, I'm not surprised at all by your dishonesty. I'm scratching my head over Adept's response because it's uncharacteristic. I expect it from you.

[patteeu]

Before the mission is extended, when you have a choice of writing an order for 729 days or 730 days and you know that there is a significant step-up in cost if you go with the latter, anyone with any sense at all would write the order for 729 days. Where are all the dopes around here who are whining about the cost of the war when you need them? Are we supposed to go out of our way to spend MORE than we need to to fight this war? Some of you people, and I'm specifically talking about jAZ here, are pathetic.

Having written the original order for 729 days, if the mission gets extended beyond that fiscal breakpoint, fairness would seem to dictate that the soldier who ends up spending 730+ days on the deployment should get the benefit of a 730+ day deployment. That's a completely different issue, though, than how the original order should have been written.

[jAZ]

Before the mission is extended, when you have a choice of writing an order for 729 days or 730 days and you know that there is a significant step-up in cost if you go with the latter, anyone with any sense at all would write the order for 729 days. Where are all the dopes around here who are whining about the cost of the war when you need them? Are we supposed to go out of our way to spend MORE than we need to to fight this war? Some of you people, and I'm specifically talking about jAZ here, are pathetic.

Having written the original order for 729 days, if the mission gets extended beyond that fiscal breakpoint, fairness would seem to dictate that the soldier who ends up spending 730+ days on the deployment should get the benefit of a 730+ day deployment. That's a completely different issue, though, than how the original order should have been written.
So much for your claim of my dishonesty.

[patteeu]

So much for your claim of my dishonesty.

Yeah, its "a sort of blind amorality" to believe that people should get what they're due. :rolleyes:

Maybe I was wrong about your dishonesty in this case. Maybe it's just plain stupidity. I can't think of too many other possibilities.

[SBK]

Either way can we just agree that George Bush is the devil?

[jAZ]

Yeah, its "a sort of blind amorality" to believe that people should get what they're due. :rolleyes:

Maybe I was wrong about your dishonesty in this case. Maybe it's just plain stupidity. I can't think of too many other possibilities.
How about "dead on balls accurate"?

[Adept Havelock]

Are you high? If not, what excuse can you possibly have for completely failing to comprehend my post. I just looked at it again and it doesn't seem like it is overly complicated. Surely it's not above your comprehension level.

I suppose that if you are more wedded to finding a way to criticize a person who supports our current foreign policy than you are to being honest about what I wrote I could understand it, but that surely isn't why you f*cked it up so bad because it's too easy to see how moronic your response is since my actual post is right next door. I'll quote myself again to give you a second shot at it. Try reading to the end this time.


I did. I formally acknowledge that you think the troops should get the benefit. Does that make you happy?

Personally, I thought you made that point fairly clear in your original post, which is why I didn't comment on it.

As to my statement:

I also acknowledge the only way it "makes a ton of sense" to write the orders that way is if you are more concerned with the bottom line and screwing the troops out of a sizable benefit like that, as I suspect the original author of those orders was. You certainly don't do it because you are primarily concerned with the troops well-being, morale, etc.

That view certainly seems supported by the only person in the thread who has any direct knowledge of the military disbursing process.

I was only commenting on that one part of your statement. I'm sorry you assumed I was stating you endorsed treating the troops like that. I don't see it in my post, but... :shrug:

Perhaps you were high? I've heard that can lead to paranoia and a persecution complex. :p

[patteeu]

I did. I acknowledge that you think the troops should get the benefit if it makes you feel better.

Personally, I thought you made that point fairly clear.

As to my statement:

I also acknowledge the only way it "makes a ton of sense" to write the orders that way is if you are more concerned with the bottom line and screwing the troops out of a sizable benefit like that, as I suspect the original author of those orders was. You certainly don't do it because you are primarily concerned with the troops well-being, morale, etc.

That view certainly seems supported by the only person in the thread who has any direct knowledge of the military disbursing process.

I was only commenting on that one part of your statement. I'm sorry you assumed I was stating you endorsed treating the troops like that. I don't see it in my post, but... :shrug:

Perhaps you were high? I've heard that can lead to paranoia and a persecution complex. :p

I guess you confused me when you suggested "that troops on a 22 month deployment are screwed out of a major benefit" when orders are written this way. It's confusing because no one's being screwed out of anything in that scenario. When the rules specify that you should get X for doing Y and you end up getting X if you end up doing Y, that's called getting your due. It's not called getting screwed.

I think that any order writer who writes an order for 730 days when 729 days appears adequate should be reprimanded for wasting the government's money. It's not up to him to manipulate the system to give his troops a little gravy. That's what a government watchdog might call abuse of the system. Your problem should be with the system itself, perhaps. Instead of hard breaks and dramatic changes in benefits, maybe the benefits should be doled out on a sliding scale. I don't know. But either way, the order writer should do his job and balance deployment needs with cost. IMO, your view is irresponsible. But thanks for explaining it better this time. :thumb:

BTW, how did the "only person in the thread who has any direct knowledge of the military disbursing process" seem to support your view when he explicitly avoided "making any comment on the correctness" of this practice? :spock:

[Adept Havelock]

BTW, how did the "only person in the thread who has any direct knowledge of the military disbursing process" seem to support your view when he explicitly avoided "making any comment on the correctness" of this practice? :spock:

I don't know. Probably when he agreed with my claim it was done to save a buck or three in his comments about it being done for budgetary reasons? All he was saying AFAICS is that he wouldn't comment on if it was the "proper" or "right" or "correct" thing to do. Perhaps you were high and couldn't understand that? :spock:

You claim it's not his job to "manipulate the system" to give the men and women on the line a "little gravy", but you seem to be fine with him manipulating the system to save Uncle Sam a few bucks by screwing the combat troops out of a benefit. IMO if you are writing the orders to avoid paying a benefit by a period of 24 hours, you are trying to screw someone.

Personally, I think it's far more irresponsible to try to save money in a war by nickle and diming the combat troops in this manner. Especially when there's plenty of other places in the budget to save that money. :shrug:

[patteeu]

I don't know. Probably when he agreed with my claim it was done to save a buck or three in his comments about it being done for budgetary reasons? All he was saying AFAICS is that he wouldn't comment on if it was the "proper" or "right" or "correct" thing to do. Perhaps you were high and couldn't understand that? :spock:

LOL, all three of us are in agreement that the reason for writing the orders this way is to keep costs down. The disagreement between the two of us is on whether that's a good thing or a bad thing. On that issue, Pikesome explicitly declined to comment. Why you would mention his agreement on the part of this that we have no difference puzzles me. I don't know, maybe you're still high. :shrug:

You claim it's not his job to "manipulate the system" to give the men and women on the line a "little gravy", but you seem to be fine with him manipulating the system to save Uncle Sam a few bucks by screwing the combat troops out of a benefit. IMO if you are writing the orders to avoid paying a benefit by a period of 24 hours, you are trying to screw someone.

Personally, I think it's far more irresponsible to try to save money in a war by nickle and diming the combat troops in this manner. Especially when there's plenty of other places in the budget to save that money. :shrug:

22 months is about 669 days. We're not talking about a period of 24 hours here. No one was screwing anyone here. And even if we were, the order writer owes it to his country and the rest of his organization to be fiscally responsible. Whether the rules that lead to decisions like this hurt morale or not is up to someone at a higher pay grade, IMO. I'm sure that there are literally millions of situations where spending more money could improve troop morale, but no organization can afford to gold plate everything for the sake of employee morale, so cost containment has to be a fact of life. How many fewer Humvees could be armored, or how many fewer sets of body armor could be procured, or how much more slowly would the MRAP be deployed if every deployment order was written so that the troops could enjoy the benefits of a 730 day deployment instead of a 729 day deployement? I realize that your initial reaction to this was probably driven by emotion (and maybe some substance abuse), but I have confidence that once you experience some sober reflection, you'll be able to admit this to yourself even if you can't bring yourself to admit it here in public. ;)

[pikesome]

I didn't want to make a judgement on whether writing the orders the way they were was "fair" or not. There's a lot more that goes into budget/accounting than people realize. A lot of the BS is because the laws (passed by Congress BTW) spell it out in fine detail, you have to work with what you have. When I did my thing for Uncle Sam we were unique on my ship because besides answering to the Captain like every other division, we also had civilian bosses who audited our books. And we were 100% active duty, the rules are even more byzantine for reservists.
I'M MAKING THE NUMBERS UP TO ILLISTRATE THE POINT, I DO NOT KNOW THE FINE DETAILS, IT'S BEEN A WHILE AND I NEVER, DIRECTLY, DEALT WITH THIS PART:
If the orders were written for 29 days, the reserve unit pays it out of their budget.
If they were written for >29< some other number the command they go under pays.
If they were written for some other number or > it comes out of a special pool or other source.

Just like a business' divisions, units in the military have budgets and they can't exceed them without additional funding, funding which is a pain in the ass to get. I've seen and participated in some, let say "shady", shuffling to get necessary things funded during budget shortfalls. I don't know if the budget was too small or mismanaged, I was way too far down the totem pole to see that part, just the end result.

To sum all this up, budget decisions can suck, they do in every other business and, to a certain extent, the military works like a big corp. Congress has and is very particular in where and when monies can be spent as well as the military is saddled with a huge bureaucracy (containing more than a few civilians) who protect their turf like rabid hyenas. Congress might have very little say in operations but they make up for it in tight-fisted control of money. That tight-fisted attitude is, sometimes the only way a CO can run his unit because, ultimately, he's on his own, requesting more money is a sure way to get noticed and not in a good way.

[patteeu]

I didn't want to make a judgement on whether writing the orders the way they were was "fair" or not. There's a lot more that goes into budget/accounting than people realize. A lot of the BS is because the laws (passed by Congress BTW) spell it out in fine detail, you have to work with what you have. When I did my thing for Uncle Sam we were unique on my ship because besides answering to the Captain like every other division, we also had civilian bosses who audited our books. And we were 100% active duty, the rules are even more byzantine for reservists.
I'M MAKING THE NUMBERS UP TO ILLISTRATE THE POINT, I DO NOT KNOW THE FINE DETAILS, IT'S BEEN A WHILE AND I NEVER, DIRECTLY, DEALT WITH THIS PART:
If the orders were written for 29 days, the reserve unit pays it out of their budget.
If they were written for >29< some other number the command they go under pays.
If they were written for some other number or > it comes out of a special pool or other source.

Just like a business' divisions, units in the military have budgets and they can't exceed them without additional funding, funding which is a pain in the ass to get. I've seen and participated in some, let say "shady", shuffling to get necessary things funded during budget shortfalls. I don't know if the budget was too small or mismanaged, I was way too far down the totem pole to see that part, just the end result.

To sum all this up, budget decisions can suck, they do in every other business and, to a certain extent, the military works like a big corp. Congress has and is very particular in where and when monies can be spent as well as the military is saddled with a huge bureaucracy (containing more than a few civilians) who protect their turf like rabid hyenas. Congress might have very little say in operations but they make up for it in tight-fisted control of money. That tight-fisted attitude is, sometimes the only way a CO can run his unit because, ultimately, he's on his own, requesting more money is a sure way to get noticed and not in a good way.

Thanks for the explanation, Pikesome, and if you felt dragged into this discussion further than you wanted to be, you have my apology (and I'm sure Adept had no intention of doing that either).

BTW, link for those specific numbers? :p

[pikesome]

Thanks for the explanation, Pikesome, and if you felt dragged into this discussion further than you wanted to be, you have my apology (and I'm sure Adept had no intention of doing that either).

I don't mind the discussion but in a lot of these kinds of stories only the end result is mentioned not the possible whys. Maybe there isn't enough funding in the GI Bill program to offer benefits. Maybe funding is tight and active duty units have a habit of protecting their own. Maybe the wording for the GI Bill program excludes or has higher standards for reservist to meet. Maybe a G-whatever in Washington sent out a memo that reservists are to be kept from getting GI Bill money. I don't know, it might just be the order writing people are trying to save a buck. The one thing I'm sure of is that barring rules, directives, orders, or shortfalls the military would have "caressed" their orders to make them eligible, that's they way things get done. I've done it or been on the receiving end more than once. We despise the penny-pinchers in Washington, working the system is a time-honored tradition that predates the US Military.

BTW, link for those specific numbers? :p

I'd post an image of where I got them put I doubt you want to be my proctologist. :p

[Adept Havelock]

I didn't want to make a judgement on whether writing the orders the way they were was "fair" or not. There's a lot more that goes into budget/accounting than people realize. A lot of the BS is because the laws (passed by Congress BTW) spell it out in fine detail, you have to work with what you have. When I did my thing for Uncle Sam we were unique on my ship because besides answering to the Captain like every other division, we also had civilian bosses who audited our books. And we were 100% active duty, the rules are even more byzantine for reservists.
I'M MAKING THE NUMBERS UP TO ILLISTRATE THE POINT, I DO NOT KNOW THE FINE DETAILS, IT'S BEEN A WHILE AND I NEVER, DIRECTLY, DEALT WITH THIS PART:
If the orders were written for 29 days, the reserve unit pays it out of their budget.
If they were written for >29< some other number the command they go under pays.
If they were written for some other number or > it comes out of a special pool or other source.

Just like a business' divisions, units in the military have budgets and they can't exceed them without additional funding, funding which is a pain in the ass to get. I've seen and participated in some, let say "shady", shuffling to get necessary things funded during budget shortfalls. I don't know if the budget was too small or mismanaged, I was way too far down the totem pole to see that part, just the end result.

To sum all this up, budget decisions can suck, they do in every other business and, to a certain extent, the military works like a big corp. Congress has and is very particular in where and when monies can be spent as well as the military is saddled with a huge bureaucracy (containing more than a few civilians) who protect their turf like rabid hyenas. Congress might have very little say in operations but they make up for it in tight-fisted control of money. That tight-fisted attitude is, sometimes the only way a CO can run his unit because, ultimately, he's on his own, requesting more money is a sure way to get noticed and not in a good way.

Thank you for the clarification. Much appreciated.

I should have recognized corporate/bureaucratic inefficency at it's finest. Mea culpa.

IMO, it's still a very s**ty way to do business, but that's the way the world works.

[jAZ]

Thank you for the clarification. Much appreciated.
Double ditto.
IMO, it's still a very s**ty way to do business, but that's the way the world works.
Not sure I can agree with this part. Writing the order for 729 is calculated. But even in each of the hypotheticals pikesome offered given his unique insight... there seems to be a less shitty way to deal with it.

Write it for 650 or 700 and not let there be any bit of false hope. Write it for 730 and ensure there is no doubt.

I guess the point here is that there are always constraints in life, and how you deal with those reflects what you value most.

[CRONUS]

Before the mission is extended, when you have a choice of writing an order for 729 days or 730 days and you know that there is a significant step-up in cost if you go with the latter, anyone with any sense at all would write the order for 729 days. Where are all the dopes around here who are whining about the cost of the war when you need them? Are we supposed to go out of our way to spend MORE than we need to to fight this war? Some of you people, and I'm specifically talking about jAZ here, are pathetic.

Having written the original order for 729 days, if the mission gets extended beyond that fiscal breakpoint, fairness would seem to dictate that the soldier who ends up spending 730+ days on the deployment should get the benefit of a 730+ day deployment. That's a completely different issue, though, than how the original order should have been written.

One of the dopes here is all for the troops getting there benefits but wants to see the occupation end to cut the costs. Surely even you can comprehend the difference.

[SCChief]

I'm sorry, but that's a ridiculous over-reaction. It makes a ton of sense to write the orders that way. It also makes a ton of sense that after having their deployments extended, they deserve to see the benefits of a longer deployment. This publicity in the local media should help make sure their cause doesn't fall through the cracks or get denied by someone who thinks they can do it without reprecussion. I'd imagine that if the story is accurate and isn't leaving out any important information, in the end these soldiers will get their due. It's premature to get too outraged, imo.

Again... pay attention... I said IF this is true, that it is reprehensible. If it turns out that they wrote those orders one day short of the benefit amount in order to deny those soldiers the benefit, someone needs to lose their career over it. I AM, however, a proponent of due process, and believe that every opportunity should be given for those responsible to defend themselves.

[patteeu]

Again... pay attention... I said IF this is true, that it is reprehensible. If it turns out that they wrote those orders one day short of the benefit amount in order to deny those soldiers the benefit, someone needs to lose their career over it. I AM, however, a proponent of due process, and believe that every opportunity should be given for those responsible to defend themselves.

We agree that someone needs to pay attention. According to the article, the 729 day order was written for a deployment that was expected to last something like 669 days. That means that IF true, it's perfectly reasonable, wrt 729/730 day breakpoint, on it's face.

[Duck Dog]

The military has been doing this forever. I have TTY'd for a few days less than 6 months many times just so they could pay me less and not have to move my family.

The military has never been 'fiscally' responsible, so why be so in this instance? Besides, if you spend 22 months in Iraq, you f'n deserve some gravy!

[StcChief]

We agree that someone needs to pay attention. According to the article, the 729 day order was written for a deployment that was expected to last something like 669 days. That means that IF true, it's perfectly reasonable, wrt 729/730 day breakpoint, on it's face.
they will likely get the money for 730, So I've heard, not worth the attention.

[Duck Dog]

On a side not, what's with jaz's thread titles?

[Adept Havelock]

On a side not, what's with jaz's thread titles?

I think he's the George McGovern version of GOATSE.